Palanikumar vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
CRL A(MD) No.1214 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011424342026}
1.Palanikumar
2.Moorthy @ Sriramamoorthi
..appellants/Accused 1 and 6
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai Town,
Pudukkottai District.
2. State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.68 of 2026)
3. Pushpalatha
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of BNSS
r/w. Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, to call for the records
pertaining to the order dated 25.09.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2026
in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2026 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial
of SC/ST Act Cases, Pudukkottai and to set aside the same and enlarge
the appellants on bail in connection with Crime No.68 of 2026 on the file
of the second respondent Police by allowing Criminal Appeal petition.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
For appellants: Mr.M.Karunanithi
for Mr.K.G.Arunkumar
For Respondent: Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order declining bail by
the learned Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act, Pudukkottai, in
Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2026, dated 13.08.2026.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellants are arrayed as A1 and A6 before the Trial Court. It is the case
of the prosecution that, due to previous enmity, one Dinesh was murdered
by the appellants herein and other co-accused. The prosecution has
projected a case as if it is a case of eyewitnesses. However, it is the
consistent case of the defence that the occurrence happened in a secluded
place and there were no witnesses. In this case, the trial has already
commenced. The alleged eyewitness, the defacto complainant, was
examined as PW1 before the Trial Court. PW1 was subjected to cross-
examination, wherein she clearly admitted that she had seen the dead
body of her son after removing the tarpaulin placed over the corpse,
which clearly signifies that she is not an eyewitness. Further, the learned
counsel for the appellants contended that, in this case, the services of
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
sniffer dogs were utilised, which also clearly discloses that it is not a case
of eyewitnesses. That is, if the prosecution had known the involvement of
the appellants and other co-accused, they would not have used the
services of sniffer dogs. Therefore, subsequently, the case was fabricated
against these appellants and other co-accused as if the alleged
eyewitnesses had seen the occurrence.
3. The prosecution has not produced all the eyewitnesses at a time,
but they are all being fielded one by one. Therefore, an application to
defer the cross-examination was filed and permitted by the Trial Court.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
appellants have been in custody since 13.03.2026 and has been in
incarceration for about seven months. The appellants are co-operating
with the trial and they have undertaken that they will face the trial
through counsel and will not dispute their identity before the learned Trial
Court. An affidavit was sworn to that effect. Therefore, he prays for
setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Court for trial of
SC/ST (PoA) Act.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that one
Dinesh was murdered by the appellants herein and seven other accused.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
A1 to A4 are the assailants and the others guarded the place while the
commission of crime. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that it is a clear case of eyewitness account. Though the
prosecution has not examined PW1 to PW3, the defence has cross-
examined only PW1 and they cannot take advantage of the slip answer
given by the prosecution witness. It is a highly sensitive murder case and
there is a specific overt act alleged against these appellants. The
eyewitness account clearly indicates the guilt of the appellants herein.
Though this Court has granted bail to the co-accused, they are not the
actual assailants. Further, the appellants have previous cases and
therefore, she strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellants.
5. Notice was issued to the mother of the deceased / defacto
complainant. She is present today before this Court in person and is
represented by counsel. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant
submitted that her son was murdered in her presence by the appellants
and other co-accused. The victim is facing threats from the appellants that
the eyewitnesses shall not depose before the Trial Court. If the accused
are released on bail, it would demoralise the prosecution witnesses and
deter them from deposing before the Trial Court. Therefore, she strongly
opposed the grant of bail to the appellants.
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
6. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions put forth by either side.
7. On careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is a case of
the murder of one Dinesh. Though the learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the prosecution's case that it is a case of eyewitnesses is
falsified by the cross-examination of PW1, this Court does not venture to
make any comments, as the matter is pending before the Trial Court. The
fact remains that the investigation has already been completed. The trial
has already commenced. The prosecution witnesses, PW1 to PW3, have
already been examined. Out of them, PW1 was cross-examined by the
defence. The appellants could satisfy the Trial Court and get the cross-
examination of the other eyewitnesses deferred, as all the witnesses were
not produced at a time.
8. The appellants were arrested on 15.03.2026 and has been in
incarceration since then. Though apprehension was raised by the learned
counsel for the defacto complainant that the release of the appellants
would demoralise the prosecution witnesses, it could be seen that the
witnesses have already deposed before the Trial Court. Further, the
appellants have undertaken that he will co-operate with the speedy
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
disposal of the trial and will not dispute their identity during the trial.
9. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the appellants have certain previous bad antecedents, they are on bail in
those cases as well. Therefore, considering all the above circumstances,
this Court is of the considered view that the principle is that bail is the
rule and jail is the exception. Therefore, until the guilt is proven, the
appellants are presumed to be innocent and hence, even though he is
facing graver charges, this Court is inclined to grant bail. However, with
stringent following conditions:
i) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each
with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act Cases,
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
ii) The appellants and the sureties shall submit a copy
of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by
the Government in proof of their residence address;
iii) The appellants and the sureties shall file an
affidavit of undertaking before the respondent police that
the appellants will not involve in any offence in future.
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
iv) The appellants shall report before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode daily at 10.30 a.m. and
5.30 p.m., until further orders, except the days, on which
their appearance is required before the trial Court.
v) The appellants shall co-operate with the trial and
shall not dispute their identity during the trial.
vi) On violation of any of the above conditions by the
appellants, the respondent police is at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of the bail.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai Town,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Indu
CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026
16-10-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 09:24:59 pm )